Temple v. Providence Care Ctr., LLC

233 A.3d 750

James TEMPLE, Administrator for the ESTATE OF Elma B. TEMPLE, Deceased, Appellant

v.PROVIDENCE CARE CENTER, LLC d/b/a Providence Care Center, Appellee

No. 21 WAP 2019

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: October 15, 2019

Decided: July 21, 2020

JUSTICE WECHT

In this case, a panel of the Superior Court concluded that, even though Providence Care Center had waived its opportunity to ask for a mistrial, the trial court nonetheless possessed and invoked its inherent authority to grant a new trial sua sponte for the same reasons that Providence Care Center raised in its post-trial motions. In so ruling, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial.

There are instances in which a party detects, but fails to preserve, an error that could result in a mistrial. In today's decision, we again recognize that a trial court possesses the very limited and restrained authority to halt proceedings and compel them to begin anew based upon that unpreserved error. But in such a circumstance, a trial court may only use its sua sponte authority to grant a new trial where "exceedingly clear error" results in "manifest injustice," of a constitutional or structural nature.

Ewing v. Tees , 1 Binn. 450, 455-56 (Pa. 1808) (opinion of Tilghman, C.J.) However, that is not what occurred here, and the Superior Court's conclusion that it did must be reversed. Because Providence Care Center did not preserve its request for a mistrial and because the trial court did not grant, and could not have granted, a new trial sua sponte based upon the unpreserved request for a mistrial, we reverse the Superior Court's order and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

In 2008, Elma Betty Temple ("Elma"), who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, became a resident of Providence Care Center, a nursing home located in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. Providence Care Center, LLC ("Providence") owned and operated the facility, while Grane Healthcare Company ("Grane") provided management services. On November 28, 2011, Elma, who was 81 years old at the time, fell while walking on a ramp. She suffered a fracture in her right humerus, a fracture in her right pelvis, and a laceration to her right elbow. Providence apparently was not supervising Elma at the time; the only witness to the incident, a hospice chaplain, was not a designated caregiver.

On September 26, 2012, James Temple ("Temple"), Elma's son, filed a complaint on Elma's behalf¹ against Providence and Grane, alleging negligence and corporate negligence, and sought punitive damages. Temple alleged that Providence should have known that Elma required supervision, because of two previous falls in 2011. Temple further claimed that the facility was understaffed, and that Providence failed to provide needed safety measures.

In May 2016, the court of common pleas presided over an eight-day jury trial. During the trial, three issues arose that are pertinent for resolving the instant dispute: (1) the admission of evidence regarding alleged understaffing of the facility, (2) testimony pertaining to Providence's alleged "star rating,"² and (3) the propriety of Temple's closing argument, as detailed below. At the close of Temple's case, the trial court granted a motion for nonsuit as to Grane and dismissed Grane from the case. The trial court denied a motion for nonsuit as to Providence and denied a motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages.

In the bifurcated trial, the jury first considered whether Providence was negligent, the amount of compensatory damages to award, and whether Providence was reckless. The jury found that Providence was both negligent and reckless, and awarded $2,000,000 in compensatory damages. The second phase of the trial was focused upon punitive damages. After deliberations in this phase, the jury awarded $250,000 in punitive damages.

Following a flurry of post-trial motions from both Temple and Providence, the trial court granted motions for judgment non obstante veredicto ("JNOV") on punitive damages and a new trial on negligence and compensatory damages. The trial court, in part, granted the aforementioned motions because of the staffing, star rating, and closing argument issues, though, as detailed below, the trial court granted these motions despite the fact that Providence had not preserved its right to request a mistrial.

A. The Staffing Issue

During trial, Katherine McCombs, a former Providence employee, "testified that the facility was short-staffed at times and [that] she received grievances to this effect." Trial Court Opinion and Order on Defendant's Post-Trial Motions, 12/13/2016, at 10 ("Trial Ct. Post-Trial Motions Op."). Temple did not present any expert testimony to the effect that Providence's staffing fell below industry standards or that the staffing levels caused or contributed to Elma's injuries.

After McCombs’ testimony, Providence argued that the jury should not consider the staffing levels in determining whether Providence was negligent because "there [wa]s simply nothing on the face of [the] record that would allow a jury to conclude anything other than she was unsupervised at the time of the fall. That d[id] not lead to a conclusion ... that the facility was in any way understaffed." Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 5/19/2016, at 215. During discussion of this motion, the following exchanges between the trial court and Providence's attorney occurred:

THE COURT: So what, so what are you asking, that they not be permitted to argue understaffing or that understaffing led to her, led to her injury?

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: Well, I think that their argument, Your Honor, is that one of the bases of our alleged negligence is, is understaffing this facility and/or punitive damages, and so yes, I am arguing that they have not adduced evidence --

* * *

THE COURT: I think they can make an argument that there wasn't adequate staff to meet her needs.

* * *

THE COURT: I know there's been an objection about that, but certainly, you can put on your testimony about how much staff was there and argue that there was more than adequate staff. ... Do you guys need a minute?

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: I think that's all we have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And so our testimony tomorrow will be your experts?

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: We, we will have some testimony from our restorative nurse, our director of nursing --

THE COURT: Okay.

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: -- and two experts.

* * *

THE COURT: All right. ...

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: Very good.

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Anything else?

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: So long as our position, we, we raised previously before we formally rest about Your Honor's ruling regarding admitting the entire record, as long as that's clear.

Id. at 218-22. At no point during this colloquy did Providence move for a mistrial because of McCombs’ testimony. Rather, as quoted above, Providence's attorneys proceeded to another issue.

B. The Star Rating Issue

During trial, Temple sought to introduce evidence about Providence's "star rating," a metric by which the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") assess nursing homes.³ The trial court expressly forbade Temple from asking about or discussing the star rating system with any witness in front of the jury without first calling an expert from CMS to explain the system. The trial court "repeatedly said ‘No’ or ‘Nope’ 12 times with respect to this issue." Trial Ct. Post-Trial Motions Op. at 25-26; see also N.T., 5/17/2016, at 101-02.

However, after Beth Lengle, Grane's Vice President for Nursing Services, mentioned the star rating system during her testimony, Temple's attorney asked, "Do you have a good understanding of the star rating?" N.T., 5/18/2016, at 197. Providence's attorney objected, and the parties and the trial court engaged in the following conversation, in the presence of the jury:

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, I think we've got a disconnect on two different things, the Department of Health numbers --

[TEMPLE'S ATTORNEY]: Your Honor, if he has a speaking objection, then --

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: No, you're, you're mixing the two, and I think she's articulating that, and you're trying to confuse the two.

[TEMPLE'S ATTORNEY]: Well, he can, he has his opportunity to ask his own questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I, I'm going to sustain the objection as to the form of the question, and I will allow you to re-ask the question or, or maybe we just need some more foundation on what this 671^[4] is.

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: That's, I think that's my objection, Your Honor.

[TEMPLE'S ATTORNEY]: Do you have an understanding that based on the six, the five-star reports that there will be a rating for staffing from one star, two star, three star, four star, five star; right?

[LENGLE]: Yes, but that is not the same thing as the daily staffing numbers.

[TEMPLE'S ATTORNEY]: The, do you recall what the staffing, the star-rating was for Providence Care Center back in --

[PROVIDENCE'S ATTORNEY]: Objection, Your Honor. We've talked about this.

THE COURT: Sustained.

[LENGLE]: Do I answer?

THE COURT: No.

[LENGLE]: I'm sorry. Okay. Sorry.

Id. at 199-200. At the time of the testimony, Providence's attorney did not make any other objection, nor did Providence move for a mistrial. After the objection, Temple's attorney immediately resumed questioning Lengle.

C. The Closing Argument Issue

As noted above, the trial court bifurcated the trial. First, the jury was charged with considering the issues of negligence, compensatory damages, and recklessness. Then, if the jury found that Providence was reckless, the jury would consider whether and what amount of punitive damages the circumstances warranted. In preparation for the first phase of deliberations, the trial court instructed the parties not to reference punishment or the wealth of either defendant. The trial court did not "want the jury to be confused or misled in the compensatory phase that they may include some money in...